They rarely lie about straight facts, but the WashPo checker obviously slants their "half lie", "pants on fire" "mostly true" measures as politically convenient. Most people are too lazy to read the full details.
I read the full details. There were several situations in which I thought they were being too diplomatic regarding the Clinton email scandal (meaning they were being unnecessarily harsh on Clinton).
I think what you're saying is that it should flatly be "False" and not just "Mostly False".
Per their stated rating system [1], 'Mostly False' is defined as "This rating indicates that the primary elements of a claim are demonstrably false."
The slim kernel of truth in it is that the fake letter references a real court case involving the Supreme Court and Gorsuch - which seems like why it was only Mostly.
How so? They explain their reasoning, and it's independently verifiable.
I was especially impressed by the note at the bottom:
> "NOTE: This story has been updated based on discussions with a number of scientists in the field. It was originally listed as a MIXTURE, but we have now reclassified it as FALSE in response to concerns that our original narrative might have led viewers into taking the results of an activist group’s lab analyses as a scientifically rigorous addition to the debate."
It is bias because it ignores and dismisses information that is relevant. I'm not a fan of "Food Babe" but I have read up on what scientists who are not paid or influenced by Monsanto have said in their studies and how much Monsanto has done to discredit them as well.
Here is "Food Babes" response to their "Fact Check". Look into it and follow up on what she says:
But most of that hinges on IARC, which is (literally) a joke[1] in the scientific world, and that there are conflicts of interest among some (not all) researchers.
The argument is just that glyphosate isn't dangerous at the doses found in food, and that seems to be true based on Wikipedia's summary of the existing research[2].
That's distinct from the argument that glyophosate is safe for the environment or that it's safe for workers handling it in large quantities.
The distinction you point out is part of the problem I have with Snopes because those statements are not fully qualified.
We really do not know the long term effects of exposure and to dismiss that aspect ignores the cautionary principal which has been ignored far too much in this debate.
We can look at DDT as an example of what can happen when ignore and dismiss long term results. It is true DDT didn't affect those who wallowed in it and that was used to "prove" it was safe, but it is also true it affected their children, especially females, and not until they were adults did those effects become apparent.
It is also true that eating food is not the only source of exposure for everyone. And it's also true that homeowners and farmers don't always follow the instructions and laws for using these products.
So, if we read Snopes "Fact Check" on this issue it's very easy to come away thinking all those who've done independent research are wackos and glyphosate is "Safe" and may even lead some of them to say they believe it's "Safe to drink a quart of it" and therein lies the problem.
I hate to go back to the recent elections, but that's probably when Snopes lost a significant amount of reputation in my book. It's not that they're mis-reporting, but there's a complete mismatch between what they claim to be fact, and what the "rating" is. For example: http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-lau...
The claim: Hillary Clinton successfully defended an accused child rapist and later laughed about the case.
What's true: In 1975, young lawyer Hillary Rodham was appointed to represent a defendant charged with raping a 12-year-old girl. Clinton reluctantly took on the case, which ended with a plea bargain for the defendant, and later chuckled about some aspects of the case when discussing it years later.
What's false: Hillary Clinton did not volunteer to be the defendant's lawyer, she did not laugh about the case's outcome, she did not assert that the complainant "made up the rape story," she did not claim she knew the defendant to be guilty, and she did not "free" the defendant.
The language used is already terribly biased. Young Hillary reluctantly defended this child rapist and she merely chuckled - not laughed - chuckled!
Snopes verdict: Mostly False. What?
What worries me is that when Google and others use Snopes they're not looking at what Snopes reports, just the "verdict". If I read that "Hillary Clinton successfully defended an accused child rapist and later laughed about the case." is "mostly false", I'm not going to assume that it's mostly false because she chuckled instead of laughed, I'm going to assume it's mostly false because she did not defend an accused child rapist.
